MovieChat Forums > Werewolf of London (1935) Discussion > WereWolfs least screen time

WereWolfs least screen time

posted 15 years ago by vpilutis
2 replies | jump to latest

I can never understand why WEREWOLFS in general get so little screen time
Check out the history i.e.when HAMMER started its horror films they only had one
WW "Curse of the WereWolf" They did EIGHT films with DRACULA in the title and other Vampire features. They made about seven or eight Frankenstein flicks etc. We only saw the Wolfman in five films and in the last four he had to share with another monster, they made Eight with Frakenstein (Counting A&C Meet Frank) Such a cool monster and he/she gets no respect.
"Shewolf of London"? Well most of us here know about that one.

Now I have a story "She-Wolf of NY" and she IS a werewolf!

http://www.moola.com:80/moopubs/b2b/exc/join.jsp?sid=4d6a55744d7a45794e544d3d-2

[–] ElectricWarlock 11 years ago

I have noticed that as well. For some reasons, werewolves don't seem anywhere near as popular as vampires, zombies, ghosts, etc. and I've never been able to figure out why. They are so underrated.

Come, fly the teeth of the wind. Share my wings.

[–] psychocosmic-1 11 years ago

I am werewolf fan and consider myself a werewolf by psychological means, hehe, and I dont actually think they are less popular at all. Its the lack of titles which makes them less exposed to the public! I mean, how many werewolf movies were done in the 70´s? OK, Paul Naschy is great, but how many has seen his movies? Werewolves nowadays must look really realistic to be able to work on the audience.

From what I have heard and read about werewolf films in general, they always were tricky and expensive with matching makeup which had to cover more than a face, if you know what I mean...It still isnt a strong enough argument, considering the Frankensteins Monster makeup must have been as hard to work with? I am not sure!